More proof that I live in the wrong time zone. I lost on the Patriots, can I double up on VDH? What does the dog say?

Posted by: Pat H at February 7, 2005 9:19 AM

Poor Edsforth, he hasn't a chance.

Posted by: Mike Morley at February 7, 2005 9:19 AM

I hope this means that the justification for pre-emption as a form of national security risk management is sufficiently clear that we can afford to debate whether it is when the objective is only to promote a free society.

If so, it would seem that when BOTH objectives are in hand, preemption would be an obligation, not a choice.

Posted by: Moe from NC at February 7, 2005 10:49 AM

Edsforth's cut man gonna be busy.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 7, 2005 10:58 AM

So, OJ, are you "live-blogging" it?

Posted by: John Resnick at February 7, 2005 1:08 PM

It worked at the OK Corral.

Posted by: Buford T Bilbo at February 7, 2005 1:20 PM

John:

I tried at the Daniel Pipes thing, but I type one-fingered and couldn't keep up.

Posted by: oj at February 7, 2005 2:47 PM

Arg. Maybe we can persuade you for the Reader's Digest version after the fact? My 90 WPM typing doesn't get me very far across the three time zones between here and there.

Posted by: John Resnick at February 7, 2005 4:41 PM

0 k

Posted by: oj at February 7, 2005 4:52 PM

reception will follow

To be revised, if Hanson wins the debate, to

melee will follow

Posted by: at February 8, 2005 12:07 AM

Lay on.

Posted by: joe shropshire at February 8, 2005 2:39 AM

Damn straight. They'd better eat first.

Posted by: Barry Meislin at February 8, 2005 11:05 AM

You know. Pre-emptive appetite.

Posted by: Barry Meislin at February 8, 2005 11:06 AM